About your Search

20120901
20120930
Search Results 0 to 3 of about 4 (some duplicates have been removed)
greatly appreciate the many muslims in the united states and around the world who have spoken out on this issue. violence, we believe, has no place in religion and is no way to honor religion. >> also in washington, top interfaith leaders, several of them muslims, came together to denounce the violence. they strongly urged their communities to reject activities and speech that stoke religious hatred. >> we must oppose all efforts to divide people in the united states, in libya, in egypt and around the world along religious lines. small groups of violent extremists, no matter their religious identity, cannot be allowed to define their religion or their nations. >> we'll have more on all this in a few minutes. >> the protests came as the us marked the 11th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. many communities held special services to honor those who died on that day. president obama proclaimed september 11th a day of service and remembrance. at a pentagon ceremony, he emphasized that the u.s. inot at war with islam. >> i've always said that our fight is with al qaeda and its affiliates,
or police who are serving, who were not part of the taliban but who then turn against the united states? what about that? >> well, that in itself is worrisome. in other words, if the non-taliban afghan security forces are growing anti-american, that means that the line between taliban and afghan security forces can be actually gradually diminishing. also in the eyes of the population, sometimes the way we look at this very clinically that this many are taliban and this many are not may not b apparent to the afghan population who see that the afghan security forces are acting like the way the taliban would act. >> woodruff: this all started, john nagl, about this video, this anti-islam video came out. but is that playing a significant role in what we're now seeing? >> i don't think it's playing a significant role in the attacks we saw over the weekend. it is playing obviously a very significant role in the more broad islamic uprisings against american embassies including in pakistan. i continue to think that pakistan is the root of the problem and the country we should be most concerned
, when should united nations or member states intervene? >> well, these are different situations. in libya, i think we've been right in intervening because gaddafi was a dictator, and you remember that there was a sort of libyan spring, and nobody was possible because of gaddafi. therefore, a decision was taken to intervene. >> rose: is the principle you don't intervene no matter how atroacials the acts of the government in power, if in fact they have a member of the security council who opposes? or if in fact they have an army which will make it a very bloody affair. >> no. >> rose: are those the rules? >> no. the rule is because of veto if one or two people-- nations -- permanent security members-- we cannot contribute because our principle is to intervene only if we have a legal authorization. and up to now, three times, russia and china say no. and, therefore, up to now, we haven't been able to intervene. which is a humanitarian catastrophe. because every day you have more than 200 people killed. and because the security council doesn't say yes, we can't do anything. no, it's
Search Results 0 to 3 of about 4 (some duplicates have been removed)